nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

More sequels please

dodderangler

So call of duty has them.assasins creed, Grand theft auto, gran tourismo , need for speed etc
What games do u wish had more
For me it'd be red dead redemption ( I know undead came out but didn't like it. Don't like zombie games) and more gears of war
What bout u?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

ShadowHearth

gizmo wrote: »

Did you not watch the movies? In this case, Dead Space: Downfall?

YesI did and I loved them.

gizmo

ShadowHearth wrote: »

YesI did and I loved them.

Ah, good stuff!

Yea, the back story to the Ishimura would have been my first port of call for another Dead Space game but based on how that went down in Downfall, I'd wager it wouldn't really be able to pull off the creepy survival horror vibe.

Pushtrak

gizmo wrote: »

I think this is the issue with "sequels" and how people judge which games deserve them or not. Is it that folk want sequels of similar quality and style to their predecessors or ones which just attempt to continue the story or focus on the same characters.

That's a good point... I think for me, it would largely be the same quality/style, or the possibility of the same style done a little better for instance LA Noire.

Mal-Adjusted

I think that good games do deserve a limited number of sequels. From a narrative perspective, I can't see how it could take more that three games to tell any kind of story. I'd prefer id publishers would wait maybe two or three years between installments as well. Yearly updates tend to be mostly the same with only little improvements. Just look at the COD and Fifa games of the past few years. There's also the risk of over saturating the market and jading the consumers.

There defiantly is an argument for sticking with a large expansive universe after all the time put in to establish it. there's also cross genera stuff, so many Star Wars games and to be fair, X-Wing, Jedi Academy, Empire at War and KOTOR feel nothing alike and show how a franchise can be continued well without going stale. (and yes, I know that Jedi Academy is a sequel and EAW is a mash up of 2 previous games)

If there was for example, a Mass Effect RTS set parallel to the third one, would that be considered a sequel? with all the different races, it seems primed for one.

Ideally, there would be a happy balance between new IP's and returning ones.

ronoc 1

i wish there was another portal game coming.i honestly thought there would be loads of dlc with portal 2 but unfortunetly nothing.it was so refreshing to play a multiplayer game that didnt revolve around deathmatches.

Crooked Jack

Bayonetta, Conker's Bad Fur Day and Jet Force Gemini.

Crooked Jack

Also, it wouldn't technically be a sequel but I wish they'd drop all these shitty wrestling games and just give WWF No Mercy a Halo Anniversary style tune up.

Fnz

ronoc 1 wrote: »

i wish there was another portal game coming.i honestly thought there would be loads of dlc with portal 2 but unfortunetly nothing.it was so refreshing to play a multiplayer game that didnt revolve around deathmatches.

I thought there was a load of user created maps for Portal 2, no?

ShadowHearth

Fnz wrote: »

I thought there was a load of user created maps for Portal 2, no?

I never played Portal and Portal 2 for puzzles. :P

Tweej

Lock's Quest. I know no one knows this game, but let me tell you, it was incredible!

Super Mario PRG: 7 Stars also, I'm sure plenty of fanboys would love a return of Geno

C14N

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Less sequels please. True, gameplay mechanics can be iterated and improved upon much easier than making a sequel to a purely narrative book or film, but the amount of once great games now wrapped up in endless franchising is depressing. Things like Resident Evil and Final Fantasy should just be put out of their misery and have the resources poured into developing new ideas without the weight of expectation around them. We should be more willing to see a franchise retire peacefully, rather than die slowly in an assault of irrelevance and saturation, and be satisfied with what we did get (after all, there's probably more deeply disappointing sequels than completely satisfying ones). Not that that's ever going to happen given the financial viability of half-hearted yearly updates and the like.

Still, there are some games out there that do have potential for a revisit. Mirror's Edge is indeed a good example. The first felt like a prototype or draft - the mechanics were there, but the level design wasn't. Something like that probably deserves the opportunity to build upon the foundations established and the potential realised.

Grumpypants wrote: »

A trilogy is about the right length for any story to be told and very often the second and third games are much better. With most games taking a min of 2 years, that ends up being 3 games in 6 years. That's fine, it's when they start franchising it in to parts 6-7 or 8 things get silly.

A trilogy works very well for a lot of stories (Mass Effect comes to mind) but it's not necessarily the "right" length and it's usually best when actually planned as a trilogy from the start with a proper over-arching plot imo.

Timmyctc wrote: »

Resi really started losing it after 3

Resident Evil 4 is widely regarded as the best one in the franchise

It was sort of a case of a sequel done right by completely revamping the games. Shame it was then also buried with the next instalment but hey, that's what sequels are for! :pac:

ShadowHearth wrote: »

A lot of new IPs come out, which had great new and fresh mechanics, but those are not safe from flows too. Sequel is always a chance to polish out shortcomings and improve new mechanics. Just because some franchises are milked to feck, does not mean sequel is a bad thing..

But you can do that without needing to drag out sequels. It's absolutely possible to polish up game mechanics and attach them to a new IP that is similar but not a sequel. And no, a sequel doesn't equate to horribleness but there's a huge chance of a franchise getting milked with mediocre games. I can't think of too many franchises that haven't been milked. I thought Metal Gear Solid knew when to stop, same with God of War and Mass Effect (which is getting another last I heard). Naughty Dog were good enough to finish with Uncharted at 3 games.

ShadowHearth wrote: »

I am not saying I would not like to see New IPs, I am saying that there is no need to bury good universes.
Feck it, might as well scrap Starwars IP. How many sequals and spin offs we can have of that...

The problem is that you can't really have it both ways. The more resources that goes into sequels, the less that goes into new IPs. There just aren't enough people making games to make loads of both, nor do customers have the time and money. There's usually a balance but the sequels tend to get far more in the real world. Star Wars is a perfect example of a franchise gone completely off the rails for financial purposes. The first one came out 40 years ago and based on the fact that it was just called "Star Wars" with no episode number or subtitle, seems to have been planned as a single film. Despite George Lucas seeming like a hopeful and talented young director at the time, he's directed nothing but Star Wars since.

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

Yearly updates tend to be mostly the same with only little improvements. Just look at the COD and Fifa games of the past few years. There's also the risk of over saturating the market and jading the consumers.

This seems to happen with some franchises but I'm sure when devs/publishers see the likes of COD breaking records for years they tend to think they can do it too. In fairness to FIFA, that is something where the age will show every year since the players will be out of date and such, even though there is no reason they couldn't just release it as a DLC each year with new players if it wasn't such a reliable seller.

Generally, I wish the industry would cut down on sequels. Not that I want video games to be like films but I wish it would take a leaf out of that industry's ability to put out mostly single-iteration franchises that don't milk the success of the first for years after. Sure, keep some long-running series for fun, just not where literally the majority of games are sequels. I know this won't happen though because as someone once pointed out to me, the publishers look at franchises the way most people look at brands. Once they have good brand recognition, they tend to do a lot better and sure enough, most sequels to popular games do better than the originals. I just wish the branding was around the people who make the game rather than the game itself. It would be nice to have more reliable companies like Valve where you know their new game will be good from reputation or game directors who constantly produce solid games.

There are some sequels done really well imo though. Bioshock Infinite took bits of the original's concept and formed something completely new from it. Half Life's story changed massively from 1 to 2. I tend to like Zelda for only putting out 1 or just about 2 full games per life cycle. Fallout 3 was also a great way of reviving and reinventing an old franchise imo.

Just my two cents anyway.

Pushtrak

I've given up on Resi at this point. I was quite disappointed by 5. Was really turned off on the idea of ORC, and the demo of Resi 6 didn't win me over. Neither, honestly did Revelations. I downloaded the demo to it and it isn't exactly making me want to buy it.

You know, another franchise, Mass Effect... The last DLC The Citadel. It was a good DLC, I guess, but I'm either getting jaded with the series or was just not in a Mass Effect state of mind what with not having played it in so long, but it didn't click with me the same way Mass Effect did in the past. It wasn't that long back that I played that DLC, think a while had gone between its release and my playing it.

Adyx

System Shock 3. Everything else can **** right off.

C14N

RopeDrink wrote: »

RE4 is the one and only largely applauded 'let's go 3D action over the shoulder' of the series.

I think you'll find that calling RE4 the best would spark a lot of people off into a debate about the original being the best, and them being squashed by those who preferred RE2

I really liked RE4, even if they completely did away with the Survival Horror that sucked me into the series in the first place, and it was a commercial success despite it making a rift between the newcomers loving the action side of it and those who want to revisit the scary survival puzzlers that are the old REs - But it's most definitely not the best of the series and I'm sure a lot of people will agree with that, unless you purely weight it down to sales figures. It does however prove the point that a good sequel does not have to be a remastering or repackaging of an already done game and just improving it's mechanics, writing, characters or whathaveyou.

Seemed like a big gamble and it paid off for Capcom - Just a shame they butchered it from then on looking to replicate the sales by just graphically improving what they had just done in RE4 and churning out two more with little charm, some bells, whistles, bigger graphics and bugger all else in the name of sale-desire.

Well critically as well, Resident Evil 4 is the highest-rated one in the series. I'm not just saying it's "the best" though because I know that's pretty controversial, I'm just saying that a lot of people do think it's the best. I don't think it completely did away with survival horror (it was still pretty scary to me and it had survival horror tropes like scarce ammo and health), even if it's not as much of a horror game as the fixed-camera ones.

It is a shame they ruined it though. I had no love for Resident Evil 5 (co-op is a surefire way to kill any semblance of horror in a game) and it sounds like 6 wasn't good at all.

muppetkiller

Stunt Car Racer and Kick-off

TPD

I'd like another game set in the Dark Reign universe. Not necessarily an RTS, it could probably work well as an arcadey shooter even.

Mal-Adjusted

so, If a game is set in the same universe as a previous game but doesn't follow on from it (Halo Wars, Knights of the Old Republic,) does it count as a sequel?

C14N

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

so, If a game is set in the same universe as a previous game but doesn't follow on from it (Halo Wars, Knights of the Old Republic,) does it count as a sequel?

I would personally say yes, just because it's in the same franchise. Can make for interesting sequels though, look at the huge change between Fallouts 2 and 3 for example.

muppetkiller

Actually I had a think about this again after visiting the gog sale today... If there was ever a game that needed a Sequel it's
Severance Blade of Darkness

Amazing game and only $2.99 on GOG today.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

muppetkiller wrote: »

Actually I had a think about this again after visiting the gog sale today... If there was ever a game that needed a Sequel it's
Severance Blade of Darkness

Amazing game and only $2.99 on GOG today.

holy **** that's on gog? I never thought to look

i have a cd.. somewhere, I know because I found the plastic case for it years ago. whenever I played it in the last few years I just ended up pirating a copy but if it's on gog, and all jazzed up for modern pc's?

****
yes
I am buying that ****

I LOVE THIS ****ING GAME

muppetkiller

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

holy **** that's on gog? I never thought to look

i have a cd.. somewhere, I know because I found the plastic case for it years ago. whenever I played it in the last few years I just ended up pirating a copy but if it's on gog, and all jazzed up for modern pc's?

****
yes
I am buying that ****

I LOVE THIS ****ING GAME

Yup a whooping 478mb lol